It seems like a good idea to me. My ideal system would be take all Visa applicants in a given year, stack rank them based on objective criteria like college degrees, iq tests, special skills, dollar value of employment offers, etc. Accept the top 1% (or whatever percent we want based on current needs). Immigrants could bring immediate family (spouse and children) all would get green cards and eventually citizenship. Disabled parents could be brought in on non work visas if the kid is a family type that wants to watch out for them. Siblings and cousins are out of luck but can enjoy brief visits on tourist visas.

We would reserve a small number of visas, 10k per year for refugees, but again stack ranked by hardship level, can only bring immediate family, etc.

No other visas allowed.

Does anyone have a good argument against a largely merit based system like this?

I'm going to list the objections I have heard so far to a merit based system, let me know if I'm missing anything:- Un-American- Current laws not enforced, if they were, current system is good enough- Current system is good enough- Implementation detail problems, how to rank immigrants, how to enforce / administer system, cost / complexity of system- We don't need any new immigrants- Too many Asians

Disabled parents could be brought in on non work visas if the kid is a family type that wants to watch out for them.

No disabled parents unless the sponsors put up a $500,000 bond. They sell workbooks in Taiwan on how to sponsor your elderly (grand)parents, how to get the ICE forms that promise you'll take care of them, then what forms to file that they've "Left in a huff" so they can collect Soc Sec and Medicare they've never paid one dime into.

Also, H1-Bs to cost $10,000 each, must be employed directly by the company, not "consulting" firms like Tata. AT&T would have to hire H1Bs directly. Furthermore, they'd have to pay 10% over the BLS average salary for the position.

Finally, no H1Bs are permitted in office buildings that handle ANY defense/security contracts and absolutely no aerospace or defense contractor employment. Lockheed or Boeing could not have a single H1B anywhere in it's organization, only Americans.

Give us your incredibly HOTT! lesbians with IQs of 728; your wanton, nubile chicks with nine-figure bank accounts; your insatiable harlots who yearn for ever more schlong unless they're volunteering for three ways with REAL! AMERICA!n MEN! when they're not making us sandwiches.

Is this going to be a bi-partisan determined list of pre-determined criteria ?

Will the public get to comment? Not that it matters much since no one votes for the interests of their constituents anyway...

Who is going to enforce the merit based system ?

How many loopholes and special circumstances are going to be allowed and given out for large financial campaign contributions ?

Is this a take off on the Jack Welch scheme at G.E. ?

More importantly how will the Dotard be compensated for the loss of his visa workers at Mar-A-Lago ? You may want to run this by him first since I don't think large employers are gong to go along.

1. Assume the list of criteria is based on objective measures of achievement that share wide bi-partisan support. Assume we have some scientists perform regression tests on the current immigrant population to determine factors that determine the likelihood of an immigrant being a benefit to US society. Benefit could be objectively measured by tax dollars paid over lifetime - benefits received.

2. Of course public can comment and vote to change the system if we don't like it. For instance in the event of a large humanitarian disaster the public might demand we increase the number of refugee visas. But generally assume that the goal of the policy makers is to bring in the best possible immigrant mix based on objective measures that share wide bi-partisan support.

3. By enforce do you mean administer the system or catch illegals that circumvent it? Administration would be done by the State Department. They would be responsible for gathering and verifying applicant info. Info would be plugged into a program, then at the end of the year we stack rank and send out the green cards. Catching illegals would be the responsibility of ICE, although since we have established an objectively fair bi-partisan immigration system, cooperation would be fully expected. Sanctuary cities would be banned, mandatory E-Verify, jail time for employers, etc.

4. Ideally there would be no loopholes, but I did leave a small number of visas available for refugees. Since you can't objectively determine degree of hardship, this program would be exploitable somewhat, although there would be the normal laws in place for bribery and such. The number of refugee visas is small though, enough so that America does it's duty as a responsible member of the world community, but not enough so that we could be hurt, even if it was completely exploited.

5. Not familiar with the Jack Welch scheme

6. Donald Trump and other large employers would likely need to raise salaries and hire more americans. I'm sure powerful interest groups wouldn't like such a simple immigration plan as it leaves little they can exploit, but if the American people would stop calling each other names and get behind a simple commonsense merit based immigration system like this one I don't think there's much they could do.

Don’t like it personally. I think that kind of system would not be very American.

Just don’t accept people from countries that hate us and commit acts of terrorism.

Thanks for posting the first serious objection! I disagree that it isn't very american. For me, the most defining characteristic of Americanism is egalitarianism. It doesn't matter where you are born or who your parents are, if you are smart and work hard you can achieve your dreams.

That's what a merit based immigration system is. We are extending the American opportunity to the rest of the world. Anyone from any country would have the opportunity to achieve their dream of american citizenship if they work hard enough.

Of course you have to factor into your decision making the country of origin of the applicant, but ideally we would be able to come up with ways to weed out potential terrorists from good people, even those from the worst countries. (Not saying this is possible, but it should be the ideal, obviously without this ability we'd have to strongly discriminate against applicants from certain countries).

I would argue any other immigration system except open borders is anti-american since it is basing your visa application on factors that you did not earn (skin color, country of origin, how much money you have to pay for lawyers). Open borders is more fair, but it can't work for other obvious reasons which I won't go into unless anyone wants to seriously propose that as a better alternative.

We have too many foreigners now. Don't let in any until the ones that we have are full assimilated.

So you are proposing we ban all immigration until fully 100% of the population speaks perfect English and watches football? So even if some dude in China invents a cure for cancer and then wants to move here, we would not let him in because Jose still has a little bit of an accent? Doesn't seem like a better system. Next.

Immigration should be merit based AND relative to the unemployment level AND national home ownership. A small reserve for the true political refugees, but diverse and not all from one country like the disaster that was the Somali settlement in Minnesota.

We don't wanna end up like the UK or Sweden.

There are already visas for companies that need highly specialized individuals, for actors/musicians, etc.

Disabled parents could be brought in on non work visas if the kid is a family type that wants to watch out for them.

No disabled parents unless the sponsors put up a $500,000 bond. They sell workbooks in Taiwan on how to sponsor your elderly (grand)parents, how to get the ICE forms that promise you'll take care of them, then what forms to file that they've "Left in a huff" so they can collect Soc Sec and Medicare they've never paid one dime into.

Also, H1-Bs to cost $10,000 each, must be employed directly by the company, not "consulting" firms like Tata. AT&T would have to hire H1Bs directly. Furthermore, they'd have to pay 10% over the BLS average salary for the position.

Finally, no H1Bs are permitted in office buildings that handle ANY defense/security contracts and absolutely no aerospace or defense contractor employment. Lockheed or Boeing could not have a single H1B anywhere in it's...

I'm proposing getting rid of H1B. It's the worst possible immigration system you could design for a ton of reasons. Companies could offer employment to applicants and the $ value of their salary would be taken into account by the stack rank, but the salary would have to still put them in the top X% of applicants in order for them to get in.

Once in they'd have green cards so they can leave their employer. This prevents the incentives employers have to hire H1Bs because they work harder because they will literally be deported if they are fired.

Good call on the disabled scam. Parents would have to leave if their kids could / would no longer support them. They would never qualify for any benefits in the US. The kids could take out life insurance policies on themselves to care for their parents in case the kid dies. But if the money runs out the parent has got to leave.

My first objection is that the refugee number ought to depend on the need (number of refugees out there) rather than a fixed number per year. Some years, there are more refugees than others.My second objection is practical. We already bicker over how to measure achievement for people who grow up in this country. How do we extend that to people from all countries around the world? It seems like a tall order. I don't mind people trying, but there would be a lot of details to work through.My final objection is that you have to define what you are looking for. Is it material wealth that they are bringing in? Is it achievement, or is it some measure of skill?

The H1b program already addresses one goal that you are trying to achieve. It purports to allow immigration based on immediate hiring needs. Now, you might say that it fails, but that is an implementation problem as much as a goal problem.

I'm proposing getting rid of H1B. It's the worst possible immigration system you could design for a ton of reasons. Companies could offer employment to applicants and the $ value of their salary would be taken into account by the stack rank, but the salary would have to still put them in the top X% of applicants in order for them to get in.

Once in they'd have green cards so they can leave their employer. This prevents the incentives employers have to hire H1Bs because they work harder because they will literally be deported if they are fired.

Good call on the disabled scam. Parents would have to leave if their kids could / would no longer support them. They would never qualify for any benefits in the US. The kids could take out life insurance policies on themselves to care for their parents in case the kid dies. But if the money runs out the parent has got to leave.

Excellent points all. H1-B was meant for Dr. Vijay Patel, the world-famous Cardiologist, to work at Merck for a year or so on a special new Cholesterol treatment. Instead, it's being used to fill entry level positions, in order to both drive down wages and work quality, since the visa holder is stuck working for the company, usually a contractor who pimps them out to the end user.

We do have other visas, the O-2 or something?

Also, instead of bringing in foreigners to do seasonal work, why not have a program that matches rural/rustbelt poor with seasonal work elsewhere?

A lot of the things you are considering are already on the books and not being enforced. Lets just try enforcing what we already have before moving on to the next activity.

We have "selective" enforcement in most everything in this country based on race, religion, socio-economic status, political affiliation..

Right now we can not even keep track of who enters and subsequently leaves this country despite numerous attempts and excuses

How much will this cost ? Is there going to be yet another new government entity created to oversee all of this ?

Doing just a tiny bit of fast research on this countries that already have a merit based system in place are continually amending and updating their policies and the overall effectiveness lies in the hands of the bureaucrats.

From what I've seen in my lifetime here where bureaucrats are involved as well as my tax dollars - I'll pass. Prove to me your serious and rai...

Is what's on the books worth enforcing? Why is a visa lottery better then what I'm proposing? Why is H1B? Why is chain migration?

I 100% agree with you, we need to do a better job of enforcement. What's your position on sanctuary cities? What's your position on E-Verify? I support both and would probably support any measure you would want to take to enforce whatever visa system we end up having. If Donald Trump is knowingly employing illegals at Mar a Largo, let's lock him up. Of course this is hard to prove without E-Verify, but let's get that in place and then prosecute when he violates.

But I'd really just like to focus on talking about what the ideal visa system would be. I've asked the question about what is wrong with a merit based system. Criticism of the implementation is valid, but there's plenty to criticize about the implementation of our current system.

In fact, a merit based system could easily save us money over our current system. For instance, we could make it a requirement that potential applicants pay a large fee to cover state department application processing costs. Ability to pay this fee would be a good indicator of immigrant quality. Not to mention, a merit based system that is explicitly designed to optimize immigrant quality for taxes paid is going to almost certainly result in more revenue then the current random + chain migration system.

I don't necessarily have an objection to merit based but you can argue it is against early American principals vis-a-Vis the mantra of the Statue of Liberty "give me your tired your poor"... that sorta shit.

In that vein, maybe I am a softie in my old age but I really do sympathize with people seeking asylum due to some regime change in their forlorn country such that if they stay, they will be killed. Point being I would like to allow SOME immigration based more on humanitarian desires vs straight merit (perhaps the most meritorious of the asylum seekers).

My first objection is that the refugee number ought to depend on the need (number of refugees out there) rather than a fixed number per year. Some years, there are more refugees than others.My second objection is practical. We already bicker over how to measure achievement for people who grow up in this country. How do we extend that to people from all countries around the world? It seems like a tall order. I don't mind people trying, but there would be a lot of details to work through.My final objection is that you have to define what you are looking for. Is it material wealth that they are bringing in? Is it achievement, or is it some measure of skill?

The H1b program already addresses one goal that you are trying to achieve. It purports to allow immigration based on immediate hiring needs. Now, you might say that it fails, but that is an implementation problem as much as a goal problem.

1. I agree on #1, although I would put some max reasonable cap on it like 50K. I wouldn't want some later administration to come in and just declare a fake emergency to circumvent the system.

2. I agree it would be hard to do, but I think it's a lot easier to do this for visa applicants then US citizens. Mostly when measuring achievement of US citizens we are in the realm of education. The government has the duty to educate our children to the best of its ability and in addition, people's kids are very personal important subjects, so achievement measurement is controversial. Yet we do it. For immigrants, lets first all agree that the goal is to get the best possible group of immigrants in here. Then it's just a matter of setting some objective standards. Not all standards need to be purely financial. For instance, if we went purely based on IQ, just due to it's massive population sizes China and India would dominate. We could factor in a country of origin like we do for the visa lottery. I think it would be too hard to go into every possible variable we might consider on a forum, but I'd just like to see if anyone thinks it would be nearly impossible to come of with a pretty good set of metrics that would get us a good immigrant mix that most people support.

3. I'm mostly looking to maximize tax dollars paid by immigrants because that is an objective measure that is super easy to calculate. But I'm not ruling out other factors like special skills or diversity. But I would say 80% of the weight would be for tax dollars.

And I strongly disagree that H1B does anything good. It is the worst possible visa system you could design. Sure, it's tied to an offer of employment, but the salary requirements are below prevailing wages and workers cannot leave the employer. Spouses can work! If we're supposed to be bringing in people to fill very specific needs that can't be met otherwise, WTF does that have to do with letting spouses work? "Oh, it's a hardship asking these people to live on a single income"... Well I guess the fucking employer that needs these skills so desperately because no american can do the job should pay more!

I don't necessarily have an objection to merit based but you can argue it is against early American principals vis-a-Vis the mantra of the Statue of Liberty "give me your tired your poor"... that sorta shit.

In that vein, maybe I am a softie in my old age but I really do sympathize with people seeking asylum due to some regime change in their forlorn country such that if they stay, they will be killed. Point being I would like to allow SOME immigration based more on humanitarian desires vs straight merit (perhaps the most meritorious of the asylum seekers).

Agree with you 100% on the refugee thing that's why I put into the proposal a refugee visa quota. Not sure I would even have it be merit based, seems to me you should do it based on amount of oppression, if that is possible to even rank.

And it does go against the statue of liberty, but I think times have changed since the 1800s. Government provides social services (badly) and that costs money. We need to be selective who we let in otherwise the feeble safety net we have will collapse.

Immigration should be merit based AND relative to the unemployment level AND national home ownership. A small reserve for the true political refugees, but diverse and not all from one country like the disaster that was the Somali settlement in Minnesota.

This. Exactly.

Your proposal is fairly close, but keep this statement from TwoScoops in mind.

Immigration should be merit based AND relative to the unemployment level AND national home ownership. A small reserve for the true political refugees, but diverse and not all from one country like the disaster that was the Somali settlement in Minnesota.

This. Exactly.

Your proposal is fairly close, but keep this statement from TwoScoops in mind.

I agree with this. I didn't go into specifics on how we determine the % of the top immigrants we take. It would all be based on need, however that is determined. For the purpose of this discussion I don't really care. All I wanted to see was if anyone could come up with a good argument for why we shouldn't move towards a more merit based immigration system. I have literally never heard a good argument against it. Other then implementation concerns I have yet to hear one in this thread yet either.

The reason that merit-based systems are politically unpopular with liberals is that they would result in more immigrants who compete with liberals for jobs. Most liberals have a college education. Perhaps they are liberal exactly because they were indoctrinated in college and told that they are the elite, the chosen, the people who deserve everything they have because of their own merit alone. Nothing to do with borders keeping out perhaps better-qualified individuals willing to work for less...

Liberals are quite happy to import people from the 3rd world with no education because those people are no threat to themselves, only a threat to native-born US citizens who don't have much education. And if those lesser-educated US citizens complain that their own wages are being forced down by mass immigration of the unskilled, it is easy enough to call them racists! to justify their continued suffering as a result of liberal immigration policies.

We ( Progressives) all support merit based system. The only question is, are you ( Right wing) guys ready for Asian influx. Asians are better ( not saying smarter) with college degrees and finding a stable job and are ready to work very hard for what they perceive as a bright western future . Money is not the only thing to bring them here but rather clean environment, big space ( big houses ) and relatively independent democratic norms.

The reason that merit-based systems are politically unpopular with liberals is that they would result in more immigrants who compete with liberals for jobs.

We ( Progressives) all support merit based system. The only question is, are you ( Right wing) guys ready for Asian influx. Asians are better ( not saying smarter) with college degrees and finding a stable job and are ready to work very hard for what they perceive as a bright western future . Money is not the only thing to bring them here but rather clean environment, big space ( big houses ) and relatively independent democratic norms.

I'm not sure if (some) liberals oppose merit based immigration because of job competition or if it's just because they don't think it through. Hillary wanted to give every college grad a green card which would have been a terrible idea. I don't hear much concern from liberals about H1B which is suppressing wages for them according to studies.

I think a lot of liberals are opposed to immigration because Trump wants to curb it and Trump == Bad. Bernie wasn't a fan of H1B, although I think he was extremely hypocritical in being opposed to that program while wanting to grant amnesty to illegals. Maybe it is what you say Patrick, it seems extremely self interested to oppose H1B but support amnesty, especially as a white collar worker. At least open border folks are consistent.

I wish this blog had a wiki post option that could be edited by any user. I edited the original post to include objections that I have heard so far, but it would be better if people could edit the list of objections themselves so I accurately state their position.

I wish this blog had a wiki post option that could be edited by any user. I edited the original post to include objections that I have heard so far, but it would be better if people could edit the list of objections themselves so I accurately state their position.

Sure, that would not be hard, but I don't have any rollback system to deal with vandalism.

@NewGuy you know, that's a good idea and it would also not be hard to have a revisions table. So for any post, as soon as there is an edit by someone other than the original author, the previous version would get stored, and the original author could revert to any previous version.